Furuli's New Books--Attempt to Refute COJonsson

by ros 264 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Earnest

  Hi Alan,

  Third, since the book [The Sequence of Events in the Old Testament] was published by Israel's Ministry of Defense, it almost certainly goes along with traditional Jewish dating of the various events in Jewish history -- which is supported by no secular data but pretty much only by Jewish tradition, and which conflicts completely with secular and Watchtower dating.

  I haven't been able to lay my hands on this book but what I have found supports your suggestion above.

  Eliezer Shulman/Schulman was born in Bessarabia [Ukraine] in 1923. At the age of 16, he planned to immigrate to Israel on an "illegal" immigrant convoy, but was prevented by the outbread of World War II. Instead he was exiled to Siberia in 1940 for his Zionist activities. It was only in 1975 that Shulman was allowed to leave Siberia with his family to settle in Israel.

  In Siberia, Shulman began to work as a blacksmith, then as a tractor-driver, a railway-worker, a senior engineer, and finally the manager of a planning department. Throughout his long years of exile, Shulman did not give up his Jewish national values. He taught Hebrew, Torah studies, Jewish History, and Zionism to his two Siberian-born daughters. In order to teach and examine the Bible, Shulman would sketch for them the chronology of people and events in the form of charts and timelines taken exclusively from the Talmud and from the Seder Olam.

  The book, The Sequence of Events in the Old Testament, is apparently made up of facsimiles of these sketches. However, there are problems with traditional Jewish dating as you observe. The Seder Olam (which means Order of the World) was only written in the second century A.D. and "is noticeably and documentably flawed".

  Even within the orthodox Jewish community, scholars concede that in depicting the Persian period, the Seder Olam truncates what "is universally accepted by historians today" to have been a 207 year span (539 – 332 B.C.), to a mere 52 years.

  First, Mitchell.

  Jewish History in Conflict: A Study of the Major Discrepancy Between Rabbinic and Conventional Chronology ; Jason Aronson, Inc.; Northvale, NJ; 1997. Statement of Purpose, p. xix; Appendix B, pp. 161-172.

  This truncation allows the seventy years of Daniel (490 years) to finish at the time the second temple is destroyed. It also seems Shulman has allowed Zionism to colour his chronology when he writes:

  "Abraham was born 1948 years after Adam. It was in the 3760 years from the birth of Abraham to the rebirth of the State of Israel. It was 3760 years from Adam to the beginning of the Common Era. It was 1948 in the Common Era dating when Israel was reborn."

  But the proof of the pudding is in the eating and so, perhaps, "scholar" will share with us just what Shulman did write which is relevant to this thread.

  Earnest
• 

  dedalus

  edited
• 

  Alleymom

  Even within the orthodox Jewish community, scholars concede that in depicting the Persian period, the Seder Olam truncates what "is universally accepted by historians today" to have been a 207 year span (539 – 332 B.C.), to a mere 52 years.

  First, Mitchell. Jewish History in Conflict: A Study of the Major Discrepancy Between Rabbinic and Conventional Chronology ; Jason Aronson, Inc.; Northvale, NJ; 1997. Statement of Purpose, p. xix; Appendix B, pp. 161-172.

  Earnest --

  Deja vu all over again <s>! What a coincidence! I've just been reading through Mitchell First's book this weekend and wondering whether it would be worth the trouble to cite some of the bits regarding Josephus.

  I'm planning to look through Eliezer Shulman's book tomorrow (it's in the reference section, so I'll have to skim through it), but now that you tell us his chronology is taken exclusively from the Olam Seder and the Talmud I know what to expect.

  Remind me, why exactly does Scholar want us to look at this book?

  Marjorie
• 

  Earnest

  Remind me, why exactly does Scholar want us to look at [The Sequence of Events in the Old Testament by Eliezer Shulman]?

  Marjorie,

  Good question. Whatever it is, it's on page 143 so that should help. In a previous post "scholar" said:

  There are two independent chronologies that I have to hand that refer to three seventy periods each having a different begiining and end and there at least four different interpretations aside form the Society's chronology that relate to the seventy years

  and I suspect that Eliezer Shulman is one of these. Why "scholar" believes Shulman's chronology is relevant to the discussion is not quite clear unless he simply wants to show that "the subject of the seventy [years] is far more complex than you know".

  This seems to be the main thrust of his argument - that biblical chronology is complex and so Watchtower chronology has as much merit as any other. If truth be told he goes a bit further than that and describes it as "divine revelation" but he represents neither the scholarly world nor Jehovah's Witnesses with such hyperbole.

  Earnest
• 

  Alleymom

  For heaven's sake, Scholar!

  I went to the library and found the book you cited: Eliezer Shulman, The Sequence of Events in the Old Testament, 1987, p. 143. You didn't mention that it is written in HEBREW! The only English in the whole book is on the title page (as an aid to librarians, no doubt).

  Now I did study Hebrew in college, but that was Biblical Hebrew. This is not only modern unpointed Hebrew, but it's a handwritten cursive script. Not even my husband, who reads Biblical Hebrew easily, can read the cursive script.

  Because Shulman uses the Seder Olam dating and has lots of charts (the book is essentially a collection of charts with notes), I was able to find out several things by searching painstakingly through the lists.

  Did you know he dates the destruction of the temple to A.M. 3338? And that he dates the rebuilding of the temple under Darius to A.M. 3407? Do you know what those dates are in the Gregorian calendar?

  The man is saying the temple was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar in 422 BCE, and that the 70 years ended when the temple was completed on 3rd Adar in the 6th year of Darius (Ezra 6:15).

  He accepts the traditional rabbinic dating, based on the Seder Olam.

  Why in the world did you suggest this book as a reference? The author in no way supports the WT's date of 607 BCE. His 70 years of desolation are spiritual desolation.

  I have a few other questions:

  --- Have you, personally, seen a copy of this book?
  --- If so, was it written in Hebrew or English?
  --- Do you read Hebrew?
  --- If you have never actually read the book, where did you find the reference to page 143?
  --- Do you have a quote of the relevant passage from page 143?

  It is exactly this kind of misuse of scholarly sources which drives me nuts. WT literature is full of references to this scholar and that. But Jim and I have a good personal library as well as access to several excellent university libraries. When I look up a WT citation, I frequently find that they are distorting the scholar's words, using him in support of a position he actually rejects. This is dishonest and I see it all the time.

  Marjorie
• 

  Earnest

  Hi Marjorie,

  In "scholar"s defence, Shulman's book was also published "unedited" in English, Spanish, French and Russian. It was originally entitled The Sequence of Events in the Bible but was changed for non-Jewish readers to The Sequence of Events in the Old Testament: Diagramatic-Geographical-Chronological. It was translated into English by Sarah Lederhandler and published by Gefen Books in 1995.

  The good news for those unfamiliar with Hebrew (including myself) is that an English version has been released on CD (!!) and should be available from [email protected]. This seems to be a Russian publishing house in Israel but I am not certain. I have had no reply to an email I sent today with enquiries about the CD but will let you know if I do.

  Earnest
• 

  willyloman

  There has been much debate on this thread, and surely more will follow, but when the smoke clears here is the One True Thing that will have emerged:

  Since then they've been pretty silent on these things, to the extent that no one seems to be able to get any definite statements out of them about things that were basic to you and me, like what is the present teaching on the length of creative days? But has the Watchtower ever actually explained the reason behind the changes? Of course not, because it would expose the previous ones as stupid. My point is that Watchtower is chock full of pseudo-scholars too prideful to admit their mistakes, and too dishonest to admit that something as basic as their "chronology" -- the very basis of their religion -- is completely flawed.

  Okay. Back to the debate, and try not to fall into the same trap as the WT.
• 

  Alleymom

  In "scholar"s defence, Shulman's book was also published "unedited" in English, Spanish, French and Russian. It was originally entitled The Sequence of Events in the Bible but was changed for non-Jewish readers to The Sequence of Events in the Old Testament: Diagramatic-Geographical-Chronological. It was translated into English by Sarah Lederhandler and published by Gefen Books in 1995.

  Thanks, Earnest! I appreciate the research you did into this.

  The only copy my library has is the 1987 (Hebrew) edition. Since Scholar gave the publishing date as 1987, I assumed I had found the book he meant.

  Scholar: The Sequence of Events in the Old Testament, Eliezer Schulman, 1987,p.143

  Scholar, I would still like to know whether you have actually seen the book (in any language) or whether you obtained the reference from another source (in which case I would really appreciate having the title, author, and exact publishing information for that source. It might be easier to find than the actual Shulman book <s>.)

  Also, could you please quote from p. 143 to let us know what the author was saying so that we can see why you believe this book supports WT chronology? I don't see how this can possibly be when Shulman follows the Seder Olam in dating the destruction of the temple to AM 3338. I found one page where he interprets the 70 years as referring to the time between the destruction of the first temple and the completion of the second temple, so I fail to see how this supports your position, either. Could you please clarify this?

  Marjorie
• 

  AlanF

  For Marjorie and others:

  The "arguments" set forth here by "scholar" are typical of the dishonest pseudo-arguments advanced by Watchtower and its apologists on a number of topics. "Scholar" told jws:

  : There are two independent chronologies that I have to hand that refer to three seventy periods each having a different begiining and end and there at least four different interpretations aside form the Society's chronology that relate to the seventy years.

  Well that may sound very scholarly and objective on the surface -- and particularly so to the braindead JW audience that "scholar" is used to dealing with -- but when asked for his sources, he gave one from Bullinger and another from Shulman (whose name he managed to misspell), the chronologies of both of which were long ago discredited by modern scholarship. He might just as well have made reference to JCanon's "chronology" or one by Bozo the Clown.

  And clowns these Watchtower apologists are. The handful who understand enough of real historical data to be able to understand a real chronology are, to a man, committed to the fable of "the faithful and discreet slave", which means that they really reject all historical data that do not support their fable. Based on his misspelling of author Shulman's name, it's pretty obvious that "scholar" does not have the book at hand. Most likely, he keeps in touch with other Watchtower pseudo-scholars and has a few pages from Shulman's English version in photocopy. Like most of these guys, he doesn't really understand, or even care about the reasons given by authors like Shulman for the conclusions they reach -- only that they can use the conclusions that are different from good scholars to claim, "See! Scholars differ! You can't trust any of them! Trust me! Trust what I say because I use the Bible!" Even a small child can see through such tactics, which goes to show that Watchtower apologists really have not even reached the level of small children in scholarship.

  AlanF
• 

  scholar

  Alleymom

  I have a personal copies of the Companion Bible and 'The Sequence Of Events In The Old Testament by Eliezer Shulman which was published in 1987 and in English. The ISBN is 965-05-0268-8 . The relevant information is found on page 143 and simply contains a chart illustrating the Jewish traditional understanding of the seventy years.based upon Jeremiah 25:11-12; 29:10; Daniel 9:1,2. The diagram speaks for itself and in my mind simply illustrates the complexity of the nature, duration and chronology of this critical period of Judean history. I do not support its findings because it is at variance with our understanding of this period. The Society's approach is nice and simple and even though it clashes with the problematics of secular chronology, it is sufficient for the genuine Christian to have faith in the fulfillment in the Lord's prophetic word.

  Alan F as usual rants and raves in frustration and one suspects if he had a chance he would be a good book burner. He would destroy all books that clash with his pet theories. Do not give him the keys to the library.

  scholar

  BA MA Studies in Religion